Ma Nature vs. The Least Educated

[mark francis]

In your imagination, perhaps. Should we listen to scientists or to anti science rightwing politicians?

Choosing to only listen to scientists promoting one side of the scientific debate for whatever reason is not a part of the honest scientific learning process.

 

[Randomguy]

Choosing to only listen to scientists promoting one side of the scientific debate for whatever reason is not a part of the honest scientific learning process.

I bet you do not see the inanity of your comment above.

So other than scientists, whom iyo we should listen to, politicians bought by special interests?

 

[mark francis]

I bet you do not see the inanity of your comment above.

So other than scientists, whom iyo we should listen to, politicians bought by special interests?

Honest scientists do not support the wildly speculative global warming narratives but the issue has become political, thus motivating researchers tied to government funding to support dishonest claims because of political pressures.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Big Oil execs wants profits NOW, while they are present so they can share in the loot.

 

[mark francis]

Big Oil execs wants profits NOW, while they are present so they can share in the loot.

All businessmen want profits now, so what is your problem with execs of oil companies? Do you think oil companies should not have execs? Do you think oil execs should be paid minimum wage to satisfy dummass Marxists? Do you think oil companies should be put out of business and all the government entities and public and private investors in those companies should be prepared to take a huge hit when the left causes that to happen?

 

[Randomguy]

Honest scientists do not support the wildly speculative global warming narratives but the issue has become political, thus motivating researchers tied to government funding to support dishonest claims because of political pressures.

Science is falsifiable. But you and your faith are not. Yet you want to force your faith on others. Shame!

 

[mark francis]

Science is falsifiable. But you and your faith are not. Yet you want to force your faith on others. Shame!

Is refuting peer-revied reports by the thousands an example of what you mean by "science is falsifiable?"

• Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers (theepochtimes.com) 10-1-22
• Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC (nih.gov) April 2006
• Over 300 COVID-19 Papers Withdrawn for Not Meeting Standards of Scientific Soundness (theepochtimes.com) 5-26-23
• Stanford President Resigns After Report Finds Flaws in his Research - The New York Times (nytimes.com) 7-19-23
• Scientist Admits Omitting ‘Full Truth’ From Climate Study To Get It Published (msn.com) 9-5-23
• Following Gay's resignation for alleged plagiarism, doctors with Harvard Medical School accused of falsifying research data | Blaze Media (theblaze.com) 1-23-24

 

[Randomguy]

Is refuting peer-revied reports by the thousands an example of what you mean by "science is falsifiable?"

I am convinced you have no idea what falsifiable means. After months you then bluffed by saying we do not agree on what it means. I called your bluff and asked you to present your definition. You refused, I asked again and again you did not respond. Then I gave you mine and asked if you agree with it. Again no response from you. And now you are asking me again regarding its definition?

You admitted your crap is not falsifiable. So what’s to debate? Just stop making non falsifiable claims!

 

[mark francis]

I am convinced you have no idea what falsifiable means. After months you then bluffed by saying we do not agree on what it means. I called your bluff and asked you to present your definition. You refused, I asked again and again you did not respond. Then I gave you mine and asked if you agree with it. Again no response from you. And now you are asking me again regarding its definition?

You admitted your crap is not falsifiable. So what’s to debate? Just stop making non falsifiable claims!

Let's assume you are right that I have no clue what you think the word "falsifiable" means. Putting that aside, how much confidence can we have in a peer-reviewed process that has been proven thousands of times to be fallible?

 

[Randomguy]

Let's assume you are right that I have no clue what you think the word "falsifiable" means. Putting that aside, how much confidence can we have in a peer-reviewed process that has been proven thousands of times to be fallible?

You have a point. We should be skeptical of science all the time, which Crista’s constantly are.

But what is without a doubt is that if a claim is not falsifiable, it is not science. Do you agree?

 

[mark francis]

You have a point. We should be skeptical of science all the time, which Crista’s constantly are.

But what is without a doubt is that if a claim is not falsifiable, it is not science. Do you agree?

If God is not falsifiable that is because limits on human observation prevent science from knowing anything about God.

 

[Randomguy]

If God is not falsifiable that is because limits on human observation prevent science from knowing anything about God.

But what is without a doubt is that if a claim is not falsifiable, it is not science. Do you agree?

See, you never respond to relevant questions. Your are a nuisance.

 

[mark francis]

But what is without a doubt is that if a claim is not falsifiable, it is not science. Do you agree?

See, you never respond to relevant questions. Your are a nuisance.

There are claims like the origin of life on earth, the origin of the universe, and the evolution of humans from single-celled creatures that cannot be falsified so cannot be justly described as science. Secular science depending on observation cannot venture into the world of the supernatural so calling matters of the supernatural unscientific is a misnomer. Admitting science has no right to venture into the supernatural is a good step and claiming the supernatural violates or contradicts science is a lie.

 

[Randomguy]

There are claims like the origin of life on earth, the origin of the universe, and the evolution of humans from single-celled creatures that cannot be falsified …

That is your crap opinion. All those can be falsified.

 

[mark francis]

That is your crap opinion. All those can be falsified.

Belief that God created the universe and belief that some ignorant big bang did it by accident are both beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven with the tools we currently have available.